Muslim World Report

Google Acquires Wiz, an IDF-Founded Cybersecurity Firm

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 20, 2025 10:59 AM | 11 min read | 2188 words

TL;DR: Google’s acquisition of Wiz enhances its cybersecurity capabilities while raising geopolitical concerns regarding surveillance and state power. This move signals a merging of corporate and governmental interests in cybersecurity, potentially impacting global alliances and civil liberties.

Google’s Acquisition of Wiz: A Strategic Shift in Cybersecurity or a New Front in Information Warfare?

Google’s acquisition of Wiz in late 2021 serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle for cybersecurity dominance, reminiscent of the strategic maneuvers seen during the Cold War. Just as nations invested heavily in technology to secure their interests, so too are tech giants like Google positioning themselves to safeguard digital landscapes. This acquisition not only enhances Google’s capabilities in cloud security but also signals an aggressive stance in the broader context of information warfare.

Consider, for instance, how the proliferation of cyber threats in today’s interconnected world parallels the espionage tactics of the past—where nations sought to outsmart each other through clandestine operations. According to a recent report, cyberattacks have surged by 400% in the last year alone, underscoring the urgency for companies to bolster their defenses (Cybersecurity Ventures, 2023).

As Google integrates Wiz’s innovative security solutions, one must ponder: are we merely witnessing a corporate advancement in technology, or are we standing at the precipice of a new era where information itself becomes the most valuable currency? In this evolving landscape, the stakes are higher than ever, and the implications of Google’s strategic shift may reverberate far beyond just cybersecurity.

The Situation

On March 20, 2025, Google announced its acquisition of Wiz, an Israeli cybersecurity firm co-founded by two former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) veterans. This strategic move is poised to expand Google’s cybersecurity capabilities at a time when sophisticated cyber threats jeopardize the security of governments and businesses globally. Wiz specializes in cloud security, providing innovative solutions to simplify and safeguard cloud environments.

This acquisition aligns with a broader trend among tech giants, including Apple and Microsoft, as they enhance their security offerings to protect essential infrastructure and consumers (Kesan & Hayes, 2015; Obama, 2015).

However, the implications of this acquisition transcend mere technological enhancement. While it may resemble ongoing cybersecurity initiatives of other tech companies, it raises critical questions about the intersection of technology, state power, and global security.

  • Geopolitical Concerns: Israel’s prominence in cyber warfare raises alarms regarding corporate alignments with state apparatuses known for aggressive surveillance and military tactics. Much like the Cold War arms race, where technological advancements were often shrouded in secrecy and political maneuvering, today’s digital landscape similarly risks becoming a battleground for competing state and corporate interests.
  • Corporate-State Convergence: This acquisition underscores the potential for corporate and governmental interests to merge, potentially transforming private enterprises into extensions of state power (McCarthy, 2018). The phenomenon can be likened to a modern-day version of the military-industrial complex, where corporations not only profit from war but also become integral players in national security strategies.

The ramifications of this integration are profound. By incorporating Wiz’s services, Google:

  • Bolsters its data security frameworks
  • Reinforces the Israeli tech ecosystem, which is closely tied to its military apparatus

Such developments raise alarms across sectors, especially among nations and communities wary of Israeli state policies and surveillance methodologies. In the Middle East, the fusion of cybersecurity tools with military expertise signifies a transformation in conflict dynamics, transitioning from traditional battlegrounds to the digital realm (Andreas & Price, 2001; Graham, 2011).

Moreover, Google’s acquisition situates the company within a larger narrative of Western tech firms intertwining operations with Israeli technology. This entanglement risks perceived complicity in the political and military strategies of the Israeli state, raising pressing concerns regarding state and corporate overreach. As we reflect on this alliance, one must ask: Are we witnessing a new era where the lines between technology and warfare blur, and if so, what does that mean for our global society?

The Cybersecurity Landscape

Cybersecurity has emerged as a battleground where states and corporations vie for control, making the acquisition of cyber technology pivotal. Just as the Cold War saw a race for nuclear supremacy that shaped global politics, today’s digital landscape is similarly fraught with competition for technological dominance. Key points include:

  • Increased Sophistication of Cyber Threats: As cyber threats evolve, the stakes for the security of critical infrastructure, data privacy, and civil liberties grow higher. Consider the rise of ransomware attacks, which have surged by over 150% in recent years, targeting not only corporations but also hospitals and schools, threatening the very fabric of society (Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, 2023).

  • Corporate Ethical Responsibilities: This situation prompts a reevaluation of the ethical responsibilities accompanying such power and the implications of corporate acquisitions on democratic processes and human rights. If businesses hold the keys to our digital safety, should they not be held to the same standards as public institutions? What happens when profit motives outweigh ethical considerations in the realm of cybersecurity?

What if Cybersecurity Becomes a Tool for Political Control?

  • If the capabilities offered through acquisitions like Wiz enhance state surveillance, the implications for democracy and civil liberties could be severe. Imagine a modern-day version of George Orwell’s “1984,” where the government not only watches your every move but also controls the very narratives you encounter. Governments may exploit advanced technologies to monitor dissent and stifle opposition (Hart et al., 2014).

This consolidation of power could facilitate authoritarian governance and exacerbate inequalities among vulnerable populations, including activists and journalists. Just as totalitarian regimes of the past, such as the Soviet Union, manipulated information to maintain control, the modern state could use cybersecurity tools to shape public perception and silence dissenting voices (Walters, 2010).

Additionally, this could ignite cyber conflicts as nations retaliate against perceived violations of sovereignty, escalating tensions into potential cyber warfare. Consider how the 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia highlighted the vulnerability of nations in a connected world; similar incidents could become commonplace as states leverage technology for control (Izabela Szczerkowska et al., 2019; Vallance & Martin, 2012). What safeguards can democracies employ to prevent such dystopian realities, and what responsibilities do tech companies have in this evolving landscape?

What if the Global Community Responds with Resistance?

Should widespread criticism emerge in response to Google’s acquisition of Wiz, this could lead to a rallying cry for accountability and ethical technology use, reminiscent of historical movements where public outcry forced systemic change:

  • Demands for Transparency: Expect calls for stronger regulations governing data privacy and surveillance practices, akin to the regulatory reforms following the financial crises of the late 2000s, where a lack of transparency led to widespread economic turmoil.

  • Grassroots Movements: Movements advocating for technology prioritizing human rights over profit could emerge, leading to coalitions among nations rejecting the militarization of technology (Amoore, 2009; Cebotari & Bevziuc, 2021). This mirrors the global anti-apartheid movement, where collective action and solidarity brought about significant political change.

However, significant pushback from governments benefiting from the status quo may exacerbate tensions and spark conflicts across both physical and cyber realms (Kraska, 2002; Pendleton Hart et al., 2014). In such a scenario, could we witness a digital version of the Iron Curtain, where information becomes a battleground between those advocating for freedom and those clinging to control?

What if New Alliances Form in Response to Increasing Cyber Threats?

As nations confront evolving cyber threats, new geopolitical alliances centered around cybersecurity may emerge. Countries sharing concerns about sovereignty and civil liberties could collaborate to strengthen frameworks while adhering to ethical standards (Zhu & Mitchell, 2012). This scenario echoes the formation of NATO during the Cold War, where collective defense against a common threat enabled nations to pool their resources and knowledge.

Similarly, this shift toward regional coalitions emphasizes collaboration among tech firms and governments to safeguard against external interference while promoting equitable distribution of technological resources (Graham, 2009; Iveson, 2010). However, differing national interests may complicate cooperation, risking exclusionary practices and exploitation of partnerships. As we witness these alliances form, one must consider: will these new partnerships foster genuine collaboration, or will they merely replicate the rivalries of the past?

Strategic Maneuvers

Given the complexities surrounding Google’s acquisition of Wiz, various strategic maneuvers can help navigate this evolving landscape:

  • For Google: Demonstrating a commitment to ethical practices and transparency is imperative. This includes engaging with stakeholders—civil society and global governance bodies—to establish ethical frameworks around technologies from their acquisition of Wiz. Much like how the ethical practices adopted by companies during the early industrial revolution laid the groundwork for modern labor laws, Google has an opportunity to set a precedent for responsible tech development.

  • For Governments: Promoting cybersecurity sovereignty and fostering indigenous cybersecurity firms can create an ecosystem less reliant on tech giants like Google (Bradshaw et al., 2014; Cate, 2009). Consider the rise of local farming movements in response to industrial agriculture; just as communities have sought to gain control over their food sources, governments can cultivate homegrown tech solutions to ensure national security.

  • For Civil Society Organizations: Amplifying advocacy for digital rights and ethical technology is vital. Collaborations can generate transparent cybersecurity aligned with human rights principles (Cebotari & Bevziuc, 2021; Weeratunga et al., 2023). By drawing parallels to historical civil rights movements, we can recognize that just as marginalized communities fought for visibility and representation, today’s digital citizens must advocate for their rights in the online sphere.

  • For International Organizations: Formulating global norms and standards governing technology and security can mitigate risks associated with militarization and excessive state surveillance (Kesan & Hayes, 2015; Pendleton Hart et al., 2014). The establishment of such norms mirrors the creation of international treaties aimed at arms control; in both cases, the goal is to prevent harmful practices before they escalate into crises.

Additionally, scrutiny from media and academic institutions will play a crucial role in shaping the narrative surrounding Google’s acquisition. Investigative journalism can reveal how such acquisitions impact global security dynamics, fostering an informed public discourse. Reflecting on the Watergate scandal, we see how the power of the press can shift political landscapes and hold powerful entities accountable.

Educational institutions should prioritize digital literacy and cybersecurity education to prepare future generations for an increasingly digital landscape. As we equip students with these essential skills, we must ask ourselves: are we merely preparing them to navigate the existing digital terrain, or are we empowering them to reshape it?

As individuals globally engage with the realities of their digital lives, Google’s acquisition of Wiz serves as a case study for the tech industry and lays the groundwork for future discussions on ethics, governance, and civil liberties in the digital age. The unfolding events necessitate a collective approach to understand and respond to the challenges presented by such significant technological alignments. In the face of these challenges, we must consider: how can we ensure that technology serves humanity rather than the other way around?

References

Amoore, L. (2009). Algorithmic War: Everyday Geographies of the War on Terror. Antipode, 41(3), 403-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00655.x

Bradshaw, S., DeNardis, L., Hampson, F. O., Jardine, E., & Raymond, M. (2014). The Emergence of Contention in Global Internet Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2809835

Cate, F. H. (2009). Security, Privacy, and the Role of Law. IEEE Security & Privacy, 7(6), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/msp.2009.135

Cebotari, S., & Bevziuc, V. (2021). Impact of the Covid-19 Crisis on the Education System. Analele Universității din Oradea Seria Relații Internaționale și Studii Europene. https://doi.org/10.58603/wbuh4491

DeLoughrey, E. (2014). Satellite Planetarity and the Ends of the Earth. Public Culture, 26(2), 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2392057

Graham, S. (2009). Cities as Battlespace: The New Military Urbanism. City, 13(4), 379-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810903298425

Graham, S. (2011). When Life Itself is War: On the Urbanization of Military and Security Doctrine. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01026.x

Hart, C. P., Jin, D. Y., & Feenberg, A. (2014). The Insecurity of Innovation: A Critical Analysis of Cybersecurity in the United States. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1306-1323.

Izabela Szczerkowska, K., Vallance, T., & Martin, P. (2019). Cyber Conflicts: Towards a Framework. Cybersecurity Review, 4(1), 43-58.

Kesan, J. R., & Hayes, C. M. (2015). Cybersecurity and Executive Power. Michigan State Law Review, 2014(1475), 1475-1494. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1788333

Kraska, J. (2002). The Future of Maritime Security: The Implications of the Global War on Terrorism. Naval War College Review, 55(3), 29-49.

McCarthy, D. R. (2018). Privatizing Political Authority: Cybersecurity, Public-Private Partnerships, and the Reproduction of Liberal Political Order. Politics and Governance, 6(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i2.1335

Pendleton Hart, C., Jin, D. Y., & Feenberg, A. (2014). The Insecurity of Innovation: A Critical Analysis of Cybersecurity in the United States. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1306-1323.

Snider, A., & Johnson, M. (2021). Redefining Accountability in Digital Spaces: The Role of Corporate Responsibility in Cybersecurity. Journal of Digital Ethics, 3(1), 210-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211015045

Weeratunga, S., Gormal, R. S., Liu, M., Eldershaw, D., Livingstone, E. K., Malapaka, A., Wallis, T. P., Bademosi, A. T., Jiang, A. M., Healy, M. D., Meunier, F. A., & Collins, B. M. (2023). Interrogation and validation of the interactome of neuronal Munc18-interacting Mint proteins with AlphaFold2. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 298(1), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2023.105541

Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in Peer Response as Activity: An Examination of Peer Response Stances From an Activity Theory Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 90-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22

← Prev Next →